2020 Point Charts

[kristenrice]

When we bought our 100 points at AKV, our plan was to stretch them for 5 night stays, 2 out of 3 years in a 1BR. Then, we added on 50 points at HHI to go every third year (our "off" year) for 5 nights in a 1BR. Our plans changed and even though I still prefer 1BR, my DH no longer likes to go to WDW so now when I go, I book studios. Fortunately, I still have plenty of points to do that, despite the recent changes.

The recent changes have really turned me off to Disney in general. I have a big trip planned for October 2019 and after that, I really don't know when I will be back. The park tickets have gotten just too expensive, the special events are not that special anymore (oversold and overpriced) and the parks are SO crowded. When my friends would ask me why I always want to go to Disney World, I would be the first to gush about how great it is and praise the quality of service and entertainment. I cannot do that in good conscience anymore...it's just not there. Now, it's just average. I'm not going to sell my DVC membership because it does still hold a good value to me. I can still get several nights at my AKV home every year (or every other year) and only have to pay my dues. Even without going to the parks, we can still have a great vacation and a break from the Michigan winter.

I know I am in the vast minority, but everyone talks about Galaxy's Edge being such a huge draw and I feel like I am the only one who just doesn't get it... I mean, I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, but that was about it. I see nothing at all that appeals to me in this new "land" that they are opening and I have no intention of going anywhere near it. In fact, once it opens, I will not even visit DHS anymore. I almost hope that there is enough of a "minority" that think like me and SWGE won't be the hit that Disney thinks it will be...but I know that I'm wrong.

 

[Madame]

When we bought our 100 points at AKV, our plan was to stretch them for 5 night stays, 2 out of 3 years in a 1BR. Then, we added on 50 points at HHI to go every third year (our "off" year) for 5 nights in a 1BR. Our plans changed and even though I still prefer 1BR, my DH no longer likes to go to WDW so now when I go, I book studios. Fortunately, I still have plenty of points to do that, despite the recent changes.

The recent changes have really turned me off to Disney in general. I have a big trip planned for October 2019 and after that, I really don't know when I will be back. The park tickets have gotten just too expensive, the special events are not that special anymore (oversold and overpriced) and the parks are SO crowded. When my friends would ask me why I always want to go to Disney World, I would be the first to gush about how great it is and praise the quality of service and entertainment. I cannot do that in good conscience anymore...it's just not there. Now, it's just average. I'm not going to sell my DVC membership because it does still hold a good value to me. I can still get several nights at my AKV home every year (or every other year) and only have to pay my dues. Even without going to the parks, we can still have a great vacation and a break from the Michigan winter.

I know I am in the vast minority, but everyone talks about Galaxy's Edge being such a huge draw and I feel like I am the only one who just doesn't get it... I mean, I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, but that was about it. I see nothing at all that appeals to me in this new "land" that they are opening and I have no intention of going anywhere near it. In fact, once it opens, I will not even visit DHS anymore. I almost hope that there is enough of a "minority" that think like me and SWGE won't be the hit that Disney thinks it will be...but I know that I'm wrong.

I don’t know that you’re wrong. I love Disney & don’t feel the desire to ever visit GE. My DH, on the other hand, loves SW but does not like Disney. As a SW non-Disney fan it would be a one & done for him.

 

[drusba]

Do not make assumptions that DVCMC will do something like change the language of the reallocation provisions to overcome any problem. DVCMC, despite any claims of discretion to do things, is deemed by law to be a fiduciary to the members, and a fiduciary is obligated to act in the best interests of the members. Fidicuaries often have a lot of discretion but where they can really get in trouble is when they attempt to use that discretion to change applicable rules to correct mistakes they have done that could harm those with whom they have fiduciary relations, i.e., they should not be changing rules to say that whatever they have done wrong was now permissible. That is like a fiduciary claiming "I can do wrong until I get caught but then I can correct the wrong by changing the rules." I would not expect DVCMC to be in any way hasty to do an amendment, although I never rule out completely any possibilities.

Also, the rule against changing the total points applicable to a unit may be something that cannot be changed. The "unit" is the legal basis for everything. it is defined as being both a condominium and timeshare unit as defined by law. It is each unit that is subject to the "one-to-one use right to use right requirement ratio" of Florida law which says the timeshare unit cannot have more sold interests than that which would result in occupancy for a year. Under the DVC system, when you purchase you get a percentage real estate interest in a unit which is represented by a fixed number of points , e.g., you get a .0354% interest in Unit 24A represented by 150 points. The total points applicable to a unit cannot exceed that which would be required to reserve all the rooms in the unit for a year. If the developer, association, or managing entity retained the right to change the point totals applicable to a unit after it has been sold that would improperly give it the power to decrease or increase the percentage ownership real estate interests members have in the unit. It would be like saying for a fixed-week timeshare that the developer at any time, if it felt like it, could reduce your interest and take away some of the days of the week and give those days to another purchaser with a different fixed week. Think of it in a singular example: suppose Poly had only one studio and one bungalow, each in its own unit, and the studio had 5,000 points applicable to it for the year and the Bungalow 20,000. Under the theory of allocation DVCMC is following, it could raise the total points applicable to the studio to 10,000 and lower the bungalow to 15,000, requiring everyone who has enough points for a studio to make a purchase that doubles their points just to keep the same thing they have now.

And most likely the reason for adoption of the rule that the unit's total points cannot be changed is the same reason for adoption of the rule that requires any point increase in a vacation home to be offset by an equal decrease in the same vacation home, because that avoids raising the problem of changing total points applicable to a unit.

 

[Madame]

Do not make assumptions that DVCMC will do something like change the language of the reallocation provisions to overcome any problem. DVCMC, despite any claims of discretion to do things, is deemed by law to be a fiduciary to the members, and a fiduciary is obligated to act in the best interests of the members. Fidicuaries often have a lot of discretion but where they can really get in trouble is when they attempt to use that discretion to change applicable rules to correct mistakes they have done that could harm those with whom they have fiduciary relations, i.e., they should not be changing rules to say that whatever they have done wrong was now permissible. That is like a fiduciary claiming "I can do wrong until I get caught but then I can correct the wrong by changing the rules." I would not expect DVCMC to be in any way hasty to do an amendment, although I never rule out completely any possibilities.

Also, the rule against changing the total points applicable to a unit may be something that cannot be changed. The "unit" is the legal basis for everything. it is defined as being both a condominium and timeshare unit as defined by law. It is each unit that is subject to the "one-to-one use right to use right requirement ratio" of Florida law which says the timeshare unit cannot have more sold interests than that which would result in occupancy for a year. Under the DVC system, when you purchase you get a percentage real estate interest in a unit which is represented by a fixed number of points , e.g., you get a .0354% interest in Unit 24A represented by 150 points. The total points applicable to a unit cannot exceed that which would be required to reserve all the rooms in the unit for a year. If the developer, association, or managing entity retained the right to change the point totals applicable to a unit after it has been sold that would improperly give it the power to decrease or increase the percentage ownership real estate interests members have in the unit. It would be like saying for a fixed-week timeshare that the developer at any time, if it felt like it, could reduce your interest and take away some of the days of the week and give those days to another purchaser with a different fixed week. Think of it in a singular example: suppose Poly had only one studio and one bungalow, each in its own unit, and the studio had 5,000 points applicable to it for the year and the Bungalow 20,000. Under the theory of allocation DVCMC is following, it could raise the total points applicable to the studio to 10,000 and lower the bungalow to 15,000, requiring everyone who has enough points for a studio to make a purchase that doubles their points just to keep the same thing they have now.

And most likely the reason for adoption of the rule that the unit's total points cannot be changed is the same reason for adoption of the rule that requires any point increase in a vacation home to be offset by an equal decrease in the same vacation home, because that avoids raising the problem of changing total points applicable to a unit.

So either
A) they believe we are not intelligent or motivated enough to challenge them
B) they really are that sloppy & careless
C) they’ve (as you’ve already pointed out) already gotten away with this at SSR (THV, then preferred) & are really that arrogant
D) all of the above

I choose D.

 

[kristenrice]

Think of it in a singular example: suppose Poly had only one studio and one bungalow, each in its own unit, and the studio had 5,000 points applicable to it for the year and the Bungalow 20,000. Under the theory of allocation DVCMC is following, it could raise the total points applicable to the studio to 10,000 and lower the bungalow to 15,000, requiring everyone who has enough points for a studio to make a purchase that doubles their points just to keep the same thing they have now.

From the studio owner's perspective, this would obviously be a screw-job...
...but can you also elaborate on how this would hurt the person who bought the 20,000 points for the bungalow? Since they would only need 15,000 points after the adjustment, what "value" would their 5,000 points have? Wouldn't the overall system suffer as well since those points now have to be absorbed somewhere?

 

[Dean]

So either
A) they believe we are not intelligent or motivated enough to challenge them
B) they really are that sloppy & careless
C) they’ve (as you’ve already pointed out) already gotten away with this at SSR (THV, then preferred) & are really that arrogant
D) all of the above

I choose D.

Or more likely they know the POS, it's interpretation and the options better than any of us but it is reasonable to question it.

 

[Madame]

Or more likely they know the POS, it's interpretation and the options better than any of us but it is reasonable to question it.

So why is the lockoff premium language only in the VGF POS? Why was it included? Why was it not there before? Why is it not present for CCV?

 

[Dean]

So why is the lockoff premium language only in the VGF POS? Why was it included? Why was it not there before? Why is it not present for CCV?

I can't answer that question but the L/O premium has always been in place. I also believe it's in the Multi site POS as well. The bottom line is that wording doesn't matter in this situation, it simply renames information already present.

 

[Madame]

I can't answer that question but the L/O premium has always been in place. I also believe it's in the Multi site POS as well. The bottom line is that wording doesn't matter in this situation, it simply renames information already present.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m winning in this situation. There are some like the woman who screamed at me & called me a liar on FB (when I tried to point out that for certain resorts & seasons the difference btw 1 & 2 bds was negligeable), and is over on that other forum frantically trying to convince herself that her precious 2bds won’t be booked by us lowly 1 bd dwellers (hi there ) who are going to lose. No skin off my nose.

 

[mjr0483]

I love the point system as a renter as it gives me flexibility in choosing the size and time of the unit I want. But the same thing is working against us when Disney builds 20 bungalows and sells the full allotment of these points when very little of those points sold will ever be used to rent those bungalows. This puts a stress on the rest of the studio inventory as all these points are now competing for smaller units.

What I don't fully understand is these bungalows now go to breakage and get rented for cash. What happens to that cash?

 

[drusba]

What I don't fully understand is these bungalows now go to breakage and get rented for cash. What happens to that cash?

It is called mostly profit to Disney.

Bungalows have been going to breakage about 80% of the time during DVC's low to moderate demand period that runs from mid-Jan to late Sep. We do not know how many actually go to breakage but they are often even still available 30 days or less out. The rental income is divided as follows At Poly (and each resort) Disney must first use breakage income to set off dues, but the maximum amount it has to use for that set-off is 2.5% of the annual Poly budget (less taxes and several other cost items). That 2.5% is always reached annually. The excess of the 2.5% then goes to Buena Vista Trading Co., the Disney company responsible for non-home resort reservations and trade-outs to pay its costs and up to 5% more than its total costs. All the excess over that goes to Disney Vacation Management Corp, the managing entity for the resorts as profit.

I was infomed many years ago that breakage income for the resorts usually exceeds the 2.5% set-off of dues and the amount that goes to BVTC. Moreover, all that money for breakage comes to Disney with greatly reduced applicable expenses that one would normally get in doing hotel rentals. All the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the bungalows is paid out of dues charged to the members -- makes you understand why Disney thought it was a great idea to create bungalows to allow it to sell a huge amount of extra points beyond the studios to those who could afford only studios, all of which sales allowed it to recover all its construction costs plus a huge profit, gave it bungalows to put in its promo materials to the world, which can often be rented for profit and the members pay all the maintenance costs; the MBA who thought of making those part of DVC probably got a bonus; I can imagine the conversation at Disney: wouldn't it be nice to have a bunch of bungalows right on the lake to rent; no, it would cost way too much to build them and for maintenance and upkeep; no, you don't understand, I mean let's make them part of a DVC resort and have the purchasers cover all the construction costs and maintenance costs, and make them so expensive that we always get a lot to rent out for breakage income).

 

[crvetter]

So why is the lockoff premium language only in the VGF POS? Why was it included? Why was it not there before? Why is it not present for CCV?

The lock off premium is only in VGF likely because that is the most recent resort built without dedicated 1 bedroom and studios. So they included it as a way to shield themselves, so to speak, from criticisms of the 1 Bed + studio being more expensive than booking the 2 Bedroom Lockoff. However, when a resort has dedicated 1 bedrooms and studios, like CCV, it inherently gives them a "shield" when the costs grow. So I would only expect to see the lockoff wording in resorts with no dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms. No the question why it doesn't exist in SSR for example is another thing. But I think it is more likely that since SSR didn't include it led to some concerns on DVD's side so they included it in future resorts (i.e. VGF).

The question I find only concerning is each person owns a percentage of a unit (which can consist of any combination of studios, 1/2/3 bedrooms, cabin, bungalow, etc). So the wording of the POS seems to imply the points for each unit must remain the same not resort. It seems that the current point chart operated under the assumption the resort must remain the same. I feel if any effort is given bringing this up to Disney should be on that part of the language itself. I'm already in the process of bringing this up on multiple fronts with them asking for their interpretation of the language and showing real example from the points how peoples ownership percentages essentially equate to more points since your percentage of a unit and point representation must remain proportionally constant.

Take for example a unit, say Unit A, is a cabin which requires 5,000 points for a year and another unit, say Unit B, is a 1 bedroom and studio which requires 5,000 points per year. If you own 50% of Unit A you have that percentage legally speaking until the end of the contract. Another person own Unit B at 50% so they own that until the end of the contract. Thus each person owns a percentage represented by 2,500 points. Now Disney moved 1,000 points from Cabin and increased the 1 Bedroom and studio each by 500. So Unit A is now 4,000 points and Unit B is now 6,000 points. This is the problem is person 1 owning Unit A owns 50% of it but with a reservation power of an excess 500 points. Person 2 owning B owns 50% of that respective unit but has a defect of 500 points. Essentially they have changed either our point representation or our percentage of ownership representation. That is why the language is that each Unit must contain the same number of points for an entire Use Year, exhibit G of the POS for CCV for example.

It is entirely possible the units were designed in such a way that points can transfer from 2 Bedrooms to 1 Bedrooms and Studios for instance if all Units held an equal ratio of the three. But when there is any Unit in the resort that doesn't hold that ratio things change. For instance at CCV and PVB the cabins and bungalows I believe are all their own units (or 2 comprise of 1 unit at CCV). So their points technically couldn't be transferred to studios/1 bedrooms/2 bedrooms/etc. So with the above interpretation and the fact that a specific Vacation Home lies completely in an unit of that vacation Home only means if they transfer points it causes a problem with the ownership interests.

I plan on personally bringing this up with Disney, via e-mail, to see their responses. Of course I'm crafting the response much more elegantly. I need to determine if the Vacation Points I "own" is actually exactly proportional to the fraction of the Unit I own. However, I should notate that resorts without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms will always have the possibility that the studios and 1 bedrooms can increase without check (besides the 20% per year) because the Unit thing doesn't come into play since the lock-offs are all treated as 2 bedrooms.

 

[Madame]

The lock off premium is only in VGF likely because that is the most recent resort built without dedicated 1 bedroom and studios. So they included it as a way to shield themselves, so to speak, from criticisms of the 1 Bed + studio being more expensive than booking the 2 Bedroom Lockoff. However, when a resort has dedicated 1 bedrooms and studios, like CCV, it inherently gives them a "shield" when the costs grow. So I would only expect to see the lockoff wording in resorts with no dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms. No the question why it doesn't exist in SSR for example is another thing. But I think it is more likely that since SSR didn't include it led to some concerns on DVD's side so they included it in future resorts (i.e. VGF).

The question I find only concerning is each person owns a percentage of a unit (which can consist of any combination of studios, 1/2/3 bedrooms, cabin, bungalow, etc). So the wording of the POS seems to imply the points for each unit must remain the same not resort. It seems that the current point chart operated under the assumption the resort must remain the same. I feel if any effort is given bringing this up to Disney should be on that part of the language itself. I'm already in the process of bringing this up on multiple fronts with them asking for their interpretation of the language and showing real example from the points how peoples ownership percentages essentially equate to more points since your percentage of a unit and point representation must remain proportionally constant.

Take for example a unit, say Unit A, is a cabin which requires 5,000 points for a year and another unit, say Unit B, is a 1 bedroom and studio which requires 5,000 points per year. If you own 50% of Unit A you have that percentage legally speaking until the end of the contract. Another person own Unit B at 50% so they own that until the end of the contract. Thus each person owns a percentage represented by 2,500 points. Now Disney moved 1,000 points from Cabin and increased the 1 Bedroom and studio each by 500. So Unit A is now 4,000 points and Unit B is now 6,000 points. This is the problem is person 1 owning Unit A owns 50% of it but with a reservation power of an excess 500 points. Person 2 owning B owns 50% of that respective unit but has a defect of 500 points. Essentially they have changed either our point representation or our percentage of ownership representation. That is why the language is that each Unit must contain the same number of points for an entire Use Year, exhibit G of the POS for CCV for example.

It is entirely possible the units were designed in such a way that points can transfer from 2 Bedrooms to 1 Bedrooms and Studios for instance if all Units held an equal ratio of the three. But when there is any Unit in the resort that doesn't hold that ratio things change. For instance at CCV and PVB the cabins and bungalows I believe are all their own units (or 2 comprise of 1 unit at CCV). So their points technically couldn't be transferred to studios/1 bedrooms/2 bedrooms/etc. So with the above interpretation and the fact that a specific Vacation Home lies completely in an unit of that vacation Home only means if they transfer points it causes a problem with the ownership interests.

I plan on personally bringing this up with Disney, via e-mail, to see their responses. Of course I'm crafting the response much more elegantly. I need to determine if the Vacation Points I "own" is actually exactly proportional to the fraction of the Unit I own. However, I should notate that resorts without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms will always have the possibility that the studios and 1 bedrooms can increase without check (besides the 20% per year) because the Unit thing doesn't come into play since the lock-offs are all treated as 2 bedrooms.

Thank-you so much for writing that out. Those are the questions I would also like answered. Would this apply to BCV as well since there are dedicated rooms there. If you could let us know if/when DVC responds I would appreciate it. Thanks again.

 

[crvetter]

This is what I sent to DVC Management. It holds up to scrutiny for CCV and PVB however it may not for other properties.

I had a question regarding the recent 2020 point charts which seemed to allocate across different Vacation Home types points rather than just seasonal adjustments. Basically my question comes down to the interpretation of this line of text in Exhibit F paragraph 3.3 in Document #2017009668 recorded with Orange County Comptroller on 2/21/2017:

".... In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expecations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day withing a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases in Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to changes in special periods of high demand based upon Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand (including use demand during special or holiday seasons), as determined by DVCMC in its discretion."

My question relates to the component that specifically states "...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased..." This section of the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement appears to be violated in the most recent 2020 point reallocation.

For example Unit 5C declated in Document #20180088776 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Dedicated Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 29,296 and 29,300 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom), which was close to the same number of points thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required 30,130 total points, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Now if we look at Unit 1A declared in Document #20170096686 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Cabin Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 83,452 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Cabins), thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required only 83,272, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Essentially the issue either lies with my interpretation or a violation of the Membership Agreement. Until my interpretation is explained exactly where it is wrong I assume there is an accidental violation by Disney Vacation Club Management that needs to be rectified. Basically because Units do not consist of consistent proportions of Vacation Home types, and in CCV case some consist of exclusively of cabins. The only way not to guarantee compliance with the Membership Agreement, based under my interpretation, would be to only adjust the points required in a Use Year for a Vacation Home type. You can not take points from the Cabins and 2 Bedrooms and assign them to the 1 Bedroom and Studios which was done across the board for all DVC properties. My argument has only been studied for CCV but because of how Units were declared at other properties (i.e. all Units have the same proportions of Vacation Home types) it might be possible they are in compliance.​

 

[crvetter]

Thank-you so much for writing that out. Those are the questions I would also like answered. Would this apply to BCV as well since there are dedicated rooms there. If you could let us know if/when DVC responds I would appreciate it. Thanks again.

Definitely will. Technically in my opinion any property that has a dedicated studio/1 bedroom in that class (view, etc) would not need the Lockoff Premium because it is controlled by the fact the dedicated studio/1 bedroom exists. Thus there is a natural control put into place. Really the most concerning is the Unit interpretation I laid out. Hopefully the respond by e-mail. Though I will be sending this by letter to them this afternoon, which I expect to take longer to reply and likely the only way they will reply.

 

[Madame]

This is what I sent to DVC Management. It holds up to scrutiny for CCV and PVB however it may not for other properties.

I had a question regarding the recent 2020 point charts which seemed to allocate across different Vacation Home types points rather than just seasonal adjustments. Basically my question comes down to the interpretation of this line of text in Exhibit F paragraph 3.3 in Document #2017009668 recorded with Orange County Comptroller on 2/21/2017:

".... In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expecations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day withing a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases in Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to changes in special periods of high demand based upon Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand (including use demand during special or holiday seasons), as determined by DVCMC in its discretion."

My question relates to the component that specifically states "...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased..." This section of the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement appears to be violated in the most recent 2020 point reallocation.

For example Unit 5C declated in Document #20180088776 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Dedicated Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 29,296 and 29,300 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom), which was close to the same number of points thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required 30,130 total points, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Now if we look at Unit 1A declared in Document #20170096686 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Cabin Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 83,452 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Cabins), thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required only 83,272, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Essentially the issue either lies with my interpretation or a violation of the Membership Agreement. Until my interpretation is explained exactly where it is wrong I assume there is an accidental violation by Disney Vacation Club Management that needs to be rectified. Basically because Units do not consist of consistent proportions of Vacation Home types, and in CCV case some consist of exclusively of cabins. The only way not to guarantee compliance with the Membership Agreement, based under my interpretation, would be to only adjust the points required in a Use Year for a Vacation Home type. You can not take points from the Cabins and 2 Bedrooms and assign them to the 1 Bedroom and Studios which was done across the board for all DVC properties. My argument has only been studied for CCV but because of how Units were declared at other properties (i.e. all Units have the same proportions of Vacation Home types) it might be possible they are in compliance.​

Very precise and concise with supporting evidence and concrete examples. Hopefully they have a reasonable explanation & we can all put this to rest.

 

[crvetter]

This section of the POS should offer some guidance

“The Home Resort Vacation Point values established by DVCMC that are symbolic of all Ownership Interests will be based upon the 365 Use Day calendar year containing the minimum number of Fridays and Saturdays distributed through high demand periods (the "Base Year"). During the Base Year the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve all Vacation Homes during all Use Days in the Condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interests owned by Club Members in the Condominium.”

This is to say perhaps they are allowed to do this but the statement I honed in above is simply saying the Lockoff premium points can’t be used by Disney (i.e. sold) and rather are an artifact that will build cushion into the system by requiring more points for the more popular units.

I would also like to say since studios are hands down the most popular it artificially makes it appear 2 bedrooms are popular because of the high percentage of lockoffs. So perhaps studios and 1 bedrooms are truly the most desired and DVC needed a way to make it easier for 2 bedrooms to be booked as 2 bedrooms because they have a shortage with lockoffs essentially taking them out of inventory when the studios get booked. So increasing the lock off premium assists in that.

But until I hear back it’s all conjecture. But as I read more of the POS this is the seemingly logical conclusion I could draw that DVC would argue as to why the changes were necessary and allowed. It’s all interpretation in the end. I’m assuming they knew what they did when writing the POS so hopefully they provide the clear answer in the end to satisfy everyone.

 

[RRB]

This is what I sent to DVC Management. It holds up to scrutiny for CCV and PVB however it may not for other properties.

I had a question regarding the recent 2020 point charts which seemed to allocate across different Vacation Home types points rather than just seasonal adjustments. Basically my question comes down to the interpretation of this line of text in Exhibit F paragraph 3.3 in Document #2017009668 recorded with Orange County Comptroller on 2/21/2017:

".... In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expecations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day withing a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases in Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to changes in special periods of high demand based upon Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand (including use demand during special or holiday seasons), as determined by DVCMC in its discretion."

My question relates to the component that specifically states "...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased..." This section of the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement appears to be violated in the most recent 2020 point reallocation.

For example Unit 5C declated in Document #20180088776 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Dedicated Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 29,296 and 29,300 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom), which was close to the same number of points thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required 30,130 total points, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Now if we look at Unit 1A declared in Document #20170096686 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Cabin Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 83,452 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Cabins), thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required only 83,272, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Essentially the issue either lies with my interpretation or a violation of the Membership Agreement. Until my interpretation is explained exactly where it is wrong I assume there is an accidental violation by Disney Vacation Club Management that needs to be rectified. Basically because Units do not consist of consistent proportions of Vacation Home types, and in CCV case some consist of exclusively of cabins. The only way not to guarantee compliance with the Membership Agreement, based under my interpretation, would be to only adjust the points required in a Use Year for a Vacation Home type. You can not take points from the Cabins and 2 Bedrooms and assign them to the 1 Bedroom and Studios which was done across the board for all DVC properties. My argument has only been studied for CCV but because of how Units were declared at other properties (i.e. all Units have the same proportions of Vacation Home types) it might be possible they are in compliance.​

First of all, thank you for taking the time to research this issue and being proactive with it. Your message to DVC was also well written (in my non attorney opinion). Regarding your message to DVC Management, you are only making reference to the total number of points for the resort during the re-allocation process. Does that mean this is the only issue you are concerned with? Other posters have raised concerns regarding the amount of increases, when the increases occur and the infamous "2 bedroom premium lock-off room points" which are reportedly increasing the number of points in the resorts. Are these other issues concerning to you? Please keep us updated with any reply that your receive from DVC. Thanks again

 

[DougEMG]

This is what I sent to DVC Management. It holds up to scrutiny for CCV and PVB however it may not for other properties.

I had a question regarding the recent 2020 point charts which seemed to allocate across different Vacation Home types points rather than just seasonal adjustments. Basically my question comes down to the interpretation of this line of text in Exhibit F paragraph 3.3 in Document #2017009668 recorded with Orange County Comptroller on 2/21/2017:

".... In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expecations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day withing a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases in Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to changes in special periods of high demand based upon Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand (including use demand during special or holiday seasons), as determined by DVCMC in its discretion."

My question relates to the component that specifically states "...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased..." This section of the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement appears to be violated in the most recent 2020 point reallocation.

For example Unit 5C declated in Document #20180088776 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Dedicated Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 29,296 and 29,300 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom), which was close to the same number of points thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required 30,130 total points, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Now if we look at Unit 1A declared in Document #20170096686 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Cabin Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 83,452 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Cabins), thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required only 83,272, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Essentially the issue either lies with my interpretation or a violation of the Membership Agreement. Until my interpretation is explained exactly where it is wrong I assume there is an accidental violation by Disney Vacation Club Management that needs to be rectified. Basically because Units do not consist of consistent proportions of Vacation Home types, and in CCV case some consist of exclusively of cabins. The only way not to guarantee compliance with the Membership Agreement, based under my interpretation, would be to only adjust the points required in a Use Year for a Vacation Home type. You can not take points from the Cabins and 2 Bedrooms and assign them to the 1 Bedroom and Studios which was done across the board for all DVC properties. My argument has only been studied for CCV but because of how Units were declared at other properties (i.e. all Units have the same proportions of Vacation Home types) it might be possible they are in compliance.​

Beautiful email. Can't wait to see the response you get.

 

[wdrl]

In Post #423, @drusba wrote

"The total points applicable to a unit cannot exceed that which would be required to reserve all the rooms in the unit for a year."

This is not how DVC allots points to a Residential Unit. DVC points are a numerical representation of the fractional real estate interest of Vacation Home(s) comprising the Residential Unit. No consideration is made for the number of points it may take to reserve the Vacation Home(s) for the entire Use Year.

To illustrate this point, look at BLT Units 06A and 46A. They are the same size with each having two two-bedroom Vacation Homes. Thus, they have been allotted the same number of vacation points, ~39,280 points each. Yet, Unit 06A is on the second floor and has always been within the Standard View category. Unit 46A is on the eighth floor and has always been within the Theme Park View category. Because of the differences in the View categories, the number of points it would take to reserve Unit 06A for the entire year is significantly less than the number of points it takes to reserve Unit 46A.

If DVCMC was encumbered by the drusba's definition, then whenever a vacation home has moved from one View category to another, DVCMC would have to change the number of points allotted to the underlying Unit.

My question relates to the component that specifically states "...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e. the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased..." This section of the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement appears to be violated in the most recent 2020 point reallocation.

For example Unit 5C declated in Document #20180088776 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Dedicated Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 29,296 and 29,300 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Studios and 1 Lock-Off 2 Bedroom), which was close to the same number of points thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required 30,130 total points, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

Now if we look at Unit 1A declared in Document #20170096686 (recorded at the Orange County Comptroller) consists of 2 Cabin Vacation Homes. In 2018/2019 this consisted of 83,452 total number of points required to book the entire Unit (2 Cabins), thus remaining consistent with the above paragraph. However, for 2020 this required only 83,272, contradicting the Membership Agreement.

​

Copper Creek Unit 05C has been allotted about 34,865 points and Unit 01A has been allotted about 48,540 points. If you want to verify these numbers, search the Orange County Comptroller's website for deeds from these Units and compute the total number of points per Unit based on the percentage and the number of points purchased.

These Unit point totals are based not on booking requirements but on the size of the real estate interest. These Unit point totals will not change after the 2020 reallocation.